Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
December 9, 2024
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an argument relies solely on soliciting sympathy in a situation that requires rational analysis. Instead of focusing on evidence and reasoning, an argument that commits this fallacy tries to sway opinions by eliciting pity or guilt.
Appeal to pity fallacy exampleDuring conflicts, it’s common for state propaganda to portray a country as a defenseless victim of unprovoked attacks to garner backing for military endeavors or validate government actions. This approach bypasses a balanced discussion on the motivations and strategies of all the involved parties, as well as the broader implications of various courses of action.
The fallacy is also known by the more formal name argumentum ad misericordiam, meaning “argument from compassion” in Latin. Fallacious appeals to pity are easy to find in many contexts, such as advertising, politics, law, and fundraising.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 7, 2024
The cherry picking fallacy occurs when an argument highlights evidence that supports its conclusion while ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.
Presenting facts in this selective manner can distort the overall picture and yield misleading conclusions.
Cherry picking fallacy exampleA climate change skeptic cites several cold weather events as evidence against global warming, while disregarding the overwhelming scientific consensus and data indicating long-term temperature trends.
The cherry picking fallacy is particularly problematic in fields that require objective analysis, such as media reporting, scientific research, policymaking, and legal proceedings.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
August 13, 2024
The appeal to nature fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that whatever is deemed natural is inherently superior to whatever is considered unnatural. The claim that an idea or practice is natural is used as a replacement for a logical, evidence-based argument.
Arguments that commit this fallacy typically claim that something is safe, healthy, practical, or morally good solely because it is natural.
Appeal to nature fallacy example in health“Herbal supplements are derived from plants, so they’re safer than prescription drugs.”
This claim exemplifies the appeal to nature fallacy because it relies entirely on the fact that herbal supplements are “natural” to argue their safety. The argument fails to consider the importance of scientific evidence. In reality, some herbal supplements can have detrimental effects, and in many countries they aren’t required to be tested for safety like pharmaceuticals are.
The appeal to nature fallacy can be found in debates about food, lifestyle, health, and environmental policy among other subjects.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 7, 2024
The fallacy of division is the error of assuming that what’s true of a whole must also be true of any given part.
This logical fallacy can occur in arguments that appear logical but don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
Fallacy of division example“Given Google’s track record of groundbreaking technology, it’s safe to assume that any new product from Google is destined to become a fundamental part of our daily lives.”
This reasoning exemplifies the fallacy of division because it assumes that the success of Google’s product offerings on the whole means that each of its individual products will be successful. In reality, Google has created products that have failed and been discontinued, such as the social network G+ and the augmented reality headset Google Glass.
The fallacy of division can be found in discussions across many domains, such as business, science, and history.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of assuming that whatever is deemed natural is also morally good. An argument that commits this logical fallacy argues that the way things are is the way things should be without providing a logical rationale.
Naturalistic fallacies always involve claims about ethics or morality.
Naturalistic fallacy example“Humans have always engaged in competing for resources, and taking a selfish approach helps ensure survival. Therefore, it is morally good to be selfish.
”The statement exemplifies the naturalistic fallacy by using natural human competitiveness as a moral justification for selfishness. The argument is weak because it doesn’t provide any logical rationale for equating natural behavior with morally good behavior.
The naturalistic fallacy is often found in discussions of what is morally “good,” in domains such as policymaking, philosophy, and religion.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 11, 2024
The burden of proof fallacy involves failing to support one’s own assertion and challenging others to disprove it.
Although the person making a claim is responsible for providing evidence for that claim, people often commit the burden of proof fallacy by passing that responsibility on to the opposition.
Burden of proof fallacy example“It’s obvious that we live in a simulation. Prove me wrong.”
This statement is an example of the burden of proof fallacy because it asserts a conclusion without offering evidence, instead placing the onus on skeptics to disprove the claim.
The burden of proof fallacy is often associated with law, but it can be found in many other contexts as well, including politics, media, and online debates.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 21, 2024
The conjunction fallacy is the mistaken assumption that multiple events or conditions are more likely to occur together than they are to occur separately.
Conjunction fallacy exampleA doctor diagnoses a patient with the flu, but the patient disagrees: “I know you think that I have the flu, but according to WebMD, the same set of symptoms could also indicate pneumonia. I most likely have both the flu and pneumonia.”
This reasoning demonstrates the conjunction fallacy because it incorrectly assumes that the likelihood of having both the flu and pneumonia is greater than the likelihood of having the flu alone. In reality, given that the patient has symptoms that are associated with both illnesses, it’s statistically more likely that a patient has the common flu, but not also pneumonia.
This error in reasoning can affect decision-making processes in contexts such as financial planning, medical diagnostics, and legal reasoning, among others.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 13, 2025
The false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences.
This logical fallacy sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.
False equivalence exampleDuring live coverage of a peaceful protest, a reporter comments “As I’ve been reporting on the protests, the disruption brings to mind the recent riot that took place when our city’s team lost a football game. Rioters broke the windows of local businesses and set fire to a police car. The impact of these disruptive protests and riots on our communities is truly troubling. Businesses suffer, streets are barricaded, and law enforcement faces serious challenges. The city must crack down on these demonstrations.”
In this example of a false equivalence fallacy, the reporter treats a peaceful protest and a violent sports-related riot as if they were essentially equal. This commentary gives the misleading impression that the protest is as dangerous as the riot despite its lack of violent intentions or actions.
The false equivalence fallacy can occur in contexts such as politics, media reports, and casual debates when significantly different events or circumstances are treated as if they were essentially the same.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
February 11, 2025
A false dichotomy occurs when someone falsely frames an issue as having only two options even though more possibilities exist.
This oversimplification can lead people to overlook valid alternatives, believing they must choose between the two extreme options.
False dichotomy example“If you don’t support economic sanctions against Country A, you must support its oppressive regime.”
This is an example of a false dichotomy because it oversimplifies a complex scenario and claims there are only two possible stances. In reality, it is possible to have a more nuanced position or support neither option.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
July 22, 2024
The motte and bailey fallacy involves equating a controversial claim with one that is easy to defend and strategically shifting between these two positions in a misleading way.
This strategy is considered dishonest because the speaker strategically confuses the audience about their true position.
Motte and bailey fallacy exampleA politician asserts the urgent need for drastic measures to combat climate change, such as banning fossil fuels and implementing severe taxes on carbon emissions. When faced with criticism or skepticism about the economic feasibility or societal impact of such measures, the politician retreats to the safer position of advocating for incremental changes, such as improving energy efficiency and investing in green technologies.
In this example of a motte and bailey fallacy, the extreme position (the bailey) advocates for sweeping changes to address climate change, while the moderate position (the motte) emphasizes more achievable and less controversial goals. This allows a person to shield a controversial stance from criticism and avoid defending it directly.
Motte and bailey fallacies are often found in political, academic, and philosophical debates, among other contexts.
